6 ms·

It's hard to see this appeal going anywhere. The app store guidelines even explicitly mention this use case as one that requires in-app purchases to be used. >

It's hard to see this appeal going anywhere. The app store guidelines even explicitly mention this use case as one that requires in-app purchases to be used. > Apps may use in-app purchase currencies to enable customers to “tip” the developer or digital content providers in the app. Apple lists the limited scenarios where alternative purchase methods can be used and this one is not included. Since they mention it in the guidelines it's clearly something they are aware of. You may disagree with Apple's policy, but bigger companies have fought this battle and lost. Intentionally (or unintentionally) misreading the guidelines isn't going to hold water on appeal.

danpalmer 3y ago
Yeah this case seems incredibly obvious, and I feel like any suggestion from the developer that they aren't violating the policies is disingenuous. Whether the policy is a good one or not is a fair question, but not one that App Store review will (or even can) answer, and trying to do anything there is barking up the wrong tree. The right place to challenge this sort of thing is likely with organisations like the FTC, Competition and Markets Authority, or the EU equivalent.
- kiwiidb 3y ago
  The developer had a meeting with Apple representatives where they assured him that tipping profiles would be okay so he adjusted his app so people would tip profiles instead of posts. Then they still rejected the app.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    Sure but reading the guidelines that Apple representative was clearly mistaken. Unless they said "we acknowledge what the guidelines say but they are incorrect", it just seems like poor developer relations comms (from Apple, never!). I can't find the bit from the dev you're referring to so don't know if they have screenshots of it in writing or something, however, what I suspect is more likely (based on my experience talking to Apple reps about similar things) is that they gave a very charitable description of their feature, and the rep gave a non-committal "sounds like it could pass, try submitting it". I don't get why the developer is so convinced that their tip system for tipping people based on their activity on their app is not tipping for "digital content". Unless you can only tip randomly with no control over who it goes to, or tipping is for the user's activity off-app, digital content (i.e. posts etc) are literally the only thing you could be tipping for.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      The Apple representative may have been mistaken, but they did represent Apple and as such have very clearly overruled the guidelines. It should have ended there. The degree to which people will twist themselves into pretzels to defend mega-corps is something I find hard to understand, for this guy it is their life line and for Apple it is a non-issue. Apple doesn't get to hide behind their own guidelines if even their own representatives don't know them well enough to adequately represent the company.
      - TillE 3y ago
        It's unfortunate confusion, but a mistake from an employee is not a policy commitment. If Tim Cook said it, sure, but a low-level "representative" is just someone doing a job.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Legally speaking this is incorrect. The company can delegate people to interact with the outside world and those people have the ability to bind the company. If they mess up beyond their pay grade then the company may have recourse on them but the company may well still be bound externally. You still have to check if the functionary is an 'authorized agent' but if they misrepresent themselves as such then the company may well have a problem if you had no reason to believe otherwise (for instance: because of their job title or because someone with signing authority delegated the interaction with you). Such 'apparent authority' (of which this may well be a case) is the source of much confusion and many lawsuits.
        danpalmer 3y ago
        This is why, until I see a transcript of the conversation, I'm extremely inclined to believe this is the developer giving the best possible interpretation for their cause. I've spoken to Apple people and they are good at all this stuff in my experience, they know what they can say and what they can't, they're careful, and they're non-committal. Marketing people encouraging us to get our app on the store were still deferential to App Store Review and always reminded us they had the final say, and wouldn't be pinned down to any specifics.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  The actual policy at issue is tucked away in the "Other Business Model Issues" section and uses the term "monetary gift" instead of tip: > (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.
enragedcacti 3y ago
I don't think the section you quote tells the whole story > If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. > Apps may use in-app purchase currencies to enable customers to “tip” the developer or digital content providers in the app. Using "must" for unlocking features and "may" for tipping is pretty odd if they need to be treated identically. This is especially clear if you look later in the document where an almost identical phrasing is used in the other direction: > If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. > If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments Certainly the person-to-person transactions aren't required to use purchase methods other than in-app purchase despite the use of "may" in the same context. This section could probably invalidate it although its extremely confusing because only "reader" apps (3.1.3(a)) are allowed to direct to other purchasing methods but physical goods apps are required not to use IAP. How would they avoid using IAP if they can't direct to other mechanisms? > Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase, except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).
- cjpearson 3y ago
  Yes, I think their phrasing in that sentence is vague. It should be structured like the functionality one to make clear that tipping _may_ be added, but if implemented it _must_ use in-app purchases. However, since tipping is not listed in the exceptions, one should read it as not being allowed.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    Agreed, from historical context it definitely seems like the intention was confirming for developers that tipping is a valid use case for IAP and not creating an exemption, but I can see why a motivated party would read it differently, and it is made even more confusing by the App Store review notice seemingly acknowledging that some tips are exempt.
hummer_embark 3y ago
[dead]

danpalmer 3y ago

Yeah this case seems incredibly obvious, and I feel like any suggestion from the developer that they aren't violating the policies is disingenuous. Whether the policy is a good one or not is a fair question, but not one that App Store review will (or even can) answer, and trying to do anything there is barking up the wrong tree. The right place to challenge this sort of thing is likely with organisations like the FTC, Competition and Markets Authority, or the EU equivalent.

kiwiidb 3y ago
The developer had a meeting with Apple representatives where they assured him that tipping profiles would be okay so he adjusted his app so people would tip profiles instead of posts. Then they still rejected the app.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Sure but reading the guidelines that Apple representative was clearly mistaken. Unless they said "we acknowledge what the guidelines say but they are incorrect", it just seems like poor developer relations comms (from Apple, never!). I can't find the bit from the dev you're referring to so don't know if they have screenshots of it in writing or something, however, what I suspect is more likely (based on my experience talking to Apple reps about similar things) is that they gave a very charitable description of their feature, and the rep gave a non-committal "sounds like it could pass, try submitting it". I don't get why the developer is so convinced that their tip system for tipping people based on their activity on their app is not tipping for "digital content". Unless you can only tip randomly with no control over who it goes to, or tipping is for the user's activity off-app, digital content (i.e. posts etc) are literally the only thing you could be tipping for.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    The Apple representative may have been mistaken, but they did represent Apple and as such have very clearly overruled the guidelines. It should have ended there. The degree to which people will twist themselves into pretzels to defend mega-corps is something I find hard to understand, for this guy it is their life line and for Apple it is a non-issue. Apple doesn't get to hide behind their own guidelines if even their own representatives don't know them well enough to adequately represent the company.
    - TillE 3y ago
      It's unfortunate confusion, but a mistake from an employee is not a policy commitment. If Tim Cook said it, sure, but a low-level "representative" is just someone doing a job.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Legally speaking this is incorrect. The company can delegate people to interact with the outside world and those people have the ability to bind the company. If they mess up beyond their pay grade then the company may have recourse on them but the company may well still be bound externally. You still have to check if the functionary is an 'authorized agent' but if they misrepresent themselves as such then the company may well have a problem if you had no reason to believe otherwise (for instance: because of their job title or because someone with signing authority delegated the interaction with you). Such 'apparent authority' (of which this may well be a case) is the source of much confusion and many lawsuits.
        danpalmer 3y ago
        This is why, until I see a transcript of the conversation, I'm extremely inclined to believe this is the developer giving the best possible interpretation for their cause. I've spoken to Apple people and they are good at all this stuff in my experience, they know what they can say and what they can't, they're careful, and they're non-committal. Marketing people encouraging us to get our app on the store were still deferential to App Store Review and always reminded us they had the final say, and wouldn't be pinned down to any specifics.
enragedcacti 3y ago
The actual policy at issue is tucked away in the "Other Business Model Issues" section and uses the term "monetary gift" instead of tip: > (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.

enragedcacti 3y ago

I don't think the section you quote tells the whole story > If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. > Apps may use in-app purchase currencies to enable customers to “tip” the developer or digital content providers in the app. Using "must" for unlocking features and "may" for tipping is pretty odd if they need to be treated identically. This is especially clear if you look later in the document where an almost identical phrasing is used in the other direction: > If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. > If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments Certainly the person-to-person transactions aren't required to use purchase methods other than in-app purchase despite the use of "may" in the same context. This section could probably invalidate it although its extremely confusing because only "reader" apps (3.1.3(a)) are allowed to direct to other purchasing methods but physical goods apps are required not to use IAP. How would they avoid using IAP if they can't direct to other mechanisms? > Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase, except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).

cjpearson 3y ago
Yes, I think their phrasing in that sentence is vague. It should be structured like the functionality one to make clear that tipping _may_ be added, but if implemented it _must_ use in-app purchases. However, since tipping is not listed in the exceptions, one should read it as not being allowed.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  Agreed, from historical context it definitely seems like the intention was confirming for developers that tipping is a valid use case for IAP and not creating an exemption, but I can see why a motivated party would read it differently, and it is made even more confusing by the App Store review notice seemingly acknowledging that some tips are exempt.

hummer_embark 3y ago

[dead]